Delhi High Court
Farid Khan & Ors. vs The State (Govt. Of Nct) & Anr. on 21 January, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: January 21, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 250/2015 & Crl. M.A.No.958/2015
FARID KHAN & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Javed Ansari & Mr. Mehmood
Hussain, Advocates
versus
THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT ) & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1-State with SI Niranjan Singh
Mr. Tarique Hashmi, Advocate for
respondent No.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 22/2009, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of the
IPC, registered at police station Hauz Khazi, New Delhi is sought on the
basis of mediated settlement recorded in the order of 23rd April, 2014
before the matrimonial court (Annexure-P/5).
Notice.
Mr. Navin Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State accepts notice and Mr.Tarique Hashmi , Advocate,
accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent -State
Crl.M.C.No. 4006/2012 Page 1
submits that respondent No.2, present in the Court, is complainant/first-
informant of the FIR in question and she has been identified to be so by
her counsel as well as by SI Niranjan Singh, Investigating Officer of this
case.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State submits on
instructions that the trial of this FIR case has not yet begun.
Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute
between the parties has been amicably resolved vide aforesaid settlement
and that divorce as per Muslim Law has been already obtained by the
parties. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of aforesaid settlement and
of her affidavit of 6th January, 2015 supporting this petition and submits
that now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, the proceedings
arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end.
In „Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab‟ (2012) 10 SCC 303, Apex
Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases
like the instant one, by observing as under:-
"Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise
between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the
immediate and prompt attention of a court which should
endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such
compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or
would promote savagery.
Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding
having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender
and the victim has been settled although the offences are not
compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of
Crl.M.C.No. 4006/2012 Page 2
criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice
in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put
to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice
being the ultimate guiding factor."
Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial,
which now stands mutually and amicably settled between parties,
therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question
would be an exercise in futility.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 22/2009, under
Sections 498-A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at police station Hauz
Khazi, New Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed
qua petitioners. Needless to say that parties are bound by the terms of
settlement. It is made clear that in case petitioner No.1-husband defaults
in payment of `25,000/- per month, then respondent No.2-wife shall he
at liberty to get this petition revived.
This petition and application are disposed of in aforesaid terms.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 21, 2015
r
Crl.M.C.No. 4006/2012 Page 3
